BioMed Central
Page 1 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Journal of the International AIDS
Society
Open Access
Debate
HIV is a virus, not a crime: ten reasons against criminal statutes and
criminal prosecutions
Edwin Cameron*
1
, Scott Burris
2
and Michaela Clayton
3
Address:
1
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, Bloemfontein, South Africa,
2
Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, USA and
3
AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, Windhoek, Namibia
Email: Edwin Cameron* - ; Scott Burris - ; Michaela Clayton -
* Corresponding author
Abstract
The widespread phenomenon of enacting HIV-specific laws to criminally punish transmission of,
exposure to, or non-disclosure of HIV, is counter-active to good public health conceptions and
repugnant to elementary human rights principles. The authors provide ten reasons why criminal
laws and criminal prosecutions are bad strategy in the epidemic.
Debate
Criminalisation of HIV transmission has become a press-

ing issue in the management of the epidemic. Let us illus-
trate by referring to three vivid instances, from Texas,
Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone.
In Texas in May 2008, a homeless man was sent to jail. He
was convicted of committing a serious offence while being
arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct – namely, har-
assing a public servant with a deadly weapon. Because of
his past encounters with the law, the system ratcheted up
the gravity of what he did, and he ended up being sen-
tenced to 35 years in jail – of which he must serve at least
half before he can apply for parole [1].
The man had HIV. The 'deadly weapon' he used against
the public servant was his saliva. He was jailed because he
spat at the officers who were arresting him. After sentenc-
ing, Officer Waller is reported to have said he was elated
with the jury's decision: 'I know it sounds cliché [d], but
this is why you lock someone up Without him out there,
our streets are a safer place.' [2].
This was an overstated claim. First, according to the most
assured scientific knowledge we have, after nearly three
decades of studying the virus, saliva 'has never been
shown to result in transmission of HIV' [3]. So the 'deadly
weapon' the man was accused of wielding was no more
than a toy pistol – and it wasn't even loaded. Ratcheting
up the criminal law because the man had HIV was thus
inappropriate, unscientific and plain wrong.
Second, the length of the sentence is ferocious. Whatever
his past conduct, it stuns the mind that someone who has
not actually harmed anyone or damaged any property (or
otherwise spoiled the world) could be locked away for 35

years. The inference that his HIV status played a signifi-
cant, probably pivotal, part in sending him away for so
long is unavoidable. In short: the man was punished not
for what he did, but for the virus he carried.
In Zimbabwe, a 26-year-old woman from a township near
Bulawayo was arrested last year for having unprotected sex
with her lover. Like the homeless Texan, she was living
with HIV. The crime of which she was convicted was
'deliberately infecting another person'. Her lover however
tested HIV negative. The woman was receiving antiretrovi-
Published: 1 December 2008
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 doi:10.1186/1758-2652-11-7
Received: 2 October 2008
Accepted: 1 December 2008
This article is available from: />© 2008 Cameron et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( />),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 2 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
ral therapy, so that is not entirely surprising [4]. Before
sentencing her, the court tried to get a further HIV test
from the lover – even though he reportedly didn't want to
proceed with the charges at all [5]. She was eventually sen-
tenced to a suspended term of five years' imprisonment
[6]. The threat of imprisonment, and the shame and
ordeal of her conviction, will continue to hang over her.
The statute under which she was convicted, s79 of the
Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
23 of 2004, is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It
doesn't make it a crime merely for a person who knows

that she has HIV to infect another. It makes it a crime for
anyone who realises 'that there is a real risk or possibility'
that she might have HIV, to do 'anything' that she 'realises
involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another per-
son with HIV'.
In other words, though the crime is called 'deliberate
transmission of HIV', this is a misnomer. You can commit
this crime even if you do not transmit HIV. In fact, you can
commit the crime even if you do not have HIV. You
merely have to realise 'that there is a real risk or possibil-
ity' that you have HIV – and then do something – 'any-
thing' – that involves 'a real risk or possibility of infecting
another person'.
Stranger upon strange, this statute offers a defence when a
person really does has HIV. In such a case, if the other per-
son knew this, and consented, then the accused is exempt.
But, the way the statute is drafted, this defence can not
apply where the accused does not in fact have HIV, or does
not know that she has HIV – by definition, in that case she
cannot engage the informed consent defence by telling
her partner she has HIV! In short, this law creates a crime
not of effect and consequence, but of fear and possibility.
What is more, the wording of Zimbabwe law stretches
wide enough to cover a pregnant woman who knows she
has, or fears she may, have HIV. For if she does 'anything'
that involves a possibility of infecting another person –
like, giving birth, or breast-feeding her newborn baby –
the law could make her guilty of 'deliberate transmission
– even if her baby is not infected. In all cases, the law pre-
scribes punishment of up to twenty years in prison.

In Sierra Leone, lawmakers have gone even further. They
have avoided subtle lawyers' arguments about whether
their law applies to pregnant women. So they have
enacted a statute that removes all doubt. Their law also
creates an offence of 'HIV transmission', though it too
criminalises exposure to HIV, even without transmission.
The Sierra Leone law requires a person with HIV who is
aware of the fact to 'take all reasonable measures and pre-
cautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others' –
and it expressly covers a pregnant woman [7]. It requires
her to take reasonable measures to prevent transmitting
HIV to her foetus. No one doubts a mother's will and duty
to take reasonable steps to protect her baby, but the law
will make it more difficult for her to do so.
In addition, a person with HIV who is aware of this fact
must not knowingly or recklessly place another at risk of
becoming infected with HIV, unless that person knew of
the fact and voluntarily accepted the risk. This, too,
applies to pregnant mothers.
The provision criminalises not merely actual transmission
of HIV from mother to child, but makes a criminal of any
pregnant woman who knows she has HIV but does not
take reasonable measures to prevent transmission to her
baby.
There are many other sad, vivid and frightening current
examples:
• In Egypt, Human Rights Watch reports that men are
being arrested merely for having HIV under article 9(c) of
Law 10/1961, which criminalizes the 'habitual practice of
debauchery [fujur]', a term used to penalize consensual

homosexual conduct in Egyptian law [8].
• In Singapore, [9] a man with HIV has been sentenced to
a year in prison for exposing a sexual partner to the virus
even though the risk to the partner (whom he fellated)
was minimal, if not non-existent.
• In Bermuda, a man with HIV who had unprotected sex
with his girlfriend has been sentenced to ten years' impris-
onment, even though he did not infect her [10].
• In June 2008, the highest court in Switzerland held a
man liable for negligently transmitting HIV to a sexual
partner when he knew that a past partner had HIV, even
though he believed, because he experienced no serocon-
version symptoms, that he himself did not have HIV [11].
These laws are stunningly wide in their application, and
fearsome in their effects. They attack rational efforts to
lessen the impact and spread of the epidemic with a
sledge-hammer. They represent a rash phenomenon that
is taking place world-wide:
• Law-makers are putting on the statute books new laws
that create special crimes of HIV transmission or exposure.
In Africa, the continent that carries the heaviest burden of
the epidemic, at least a dozen countries [12] have already
adopted laws similar to the Sierra Leone law (though not
all of them expressly include pregnant women). Many
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 3 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
countries have done so with the proud help of an Ameri-
can-funded organisation (See also additional file 1).
• Courts and prosecutors are targeting men and women
with HIV for special prosecution.

These laws and prosecutions are creating a crisis in HIV
management and prevention efforts, and they constitute
one of the biggest threats to a rational and effective
response to the epidemic. We should try to understand
what lies behind criminalisation.
HIV is a fearsome virus, and its effects are potentially
deadly. Public officials should be able to invoke any avail-
able and effective means to counter its spread. This
includes criminal statutes and criminal prosecutions.
Moreover, in the abstract and from a distance from social
reality, there seems a certain justice that criminal penalties
should be applied against those who negligently, reck-
lessly or deliberately pass on the virus – even against those
whose actions create only the risk of doing so.
African law-makers and policy-makers, in particular, have
reason to look for strong remedies. Many African coun-
tries face a massive epidemic with agonising social and
economic costs: all effective means, including the mecha-
nisms of the criminal law and criminal prosecutions, must
be utilised.
In addition, many law-makers are spurred especially by
the plight of women. Many (including very young
women) are infected by unwary or unscrupulous men.
They need special protection, and some law-makers have
concluded that a criminal statute may best give voice to
their entitlement to protection.
It is true that the law can indeed play a constructive role in
the response to HIV, especially in addressing the unequal
and vulnerable position of many women. But the conclu-
sion that HIV-specific criminal provisions and prosecu-

tions should be part of the legal response is bad. And it
should be countered, rationally, powerfully and systemat-
ically. We wish to offer the ten plainest reasons why crim-
inal laws and criminal prosecutions make bad policy in
the AIDS epidemic.
First, criminalisation is ineffective. These laws and prose-
cutions don't prevent the spread of HIV. In the majority of
cases, the virus spreads when two people have consensual
sex, neither of them knowing that one (who may be in the
early, highly infectious stage during and soon after sero-
conversion) has HIV. That will continue to happen, no
matter what criminal laws are enacted, and what criminal
remedies are enforced. Criminalisation will not stand in
the way of the vast majority of HIV transmissions.
Second, criminal laws and criminal prosecutions are a
shoddy and misguided substitute for measures that really
protect those at risk of contracting HIV. We know what we
need in this epidemic. After more than a quarter-century,
we know very well. We need effective prevention, protec-
tion against discrimination, reduced stigma, strong lead-
ership and role models, greater access to testing, and, most
importantly, treatment for those who, today, this morn-
ing, are unnecessarily dying of AIDS.
AIDS is now a medically manageable condition. It is a
virus, not a crime, and we must reject interventions that
suggest otherwise. We must focus on ending deaths, on
ending stigma, on ending discrimination, and on ending
suffering. And, we also must focus on ending irrational,
unhelpful and resource-reducing measures like criminali-
sation.

For the uninfected, we need greater protection for women,
more secure social and economic status, and we must
enhance their capacity to negotiate safer sex and to protect
themselves from predatory sexual partners. Criminal laws
and prosecutions will not do that. What they do, instead,
is to distract us from reaching that goal.
Third, far from protecting women, criminalisation victim-
ises, oppresses and endangers them. In Africa most people
who know their HIV status are female. This is because
most testing occurs at ante-natal healthcare sites. The
result, inevitably, is that most of those who will be prose-
cuted because they know – or ought to know – their HIV
status will be women – like the Zimbabwe woman who
now has a five-year prison sentence hanging over her.
As the International Community of Women Living with
HIV/AIDS has pointed out in a powerful consultation
process, many women cannot disclose their status to their
partners because they fear violent assault or exclusion
from the home. If a woman in this position continues a
sexual relationship (whether consensually or not), she
risks prosecution under the African model statutes for
exposing her partner to HIV (even when she does not pass
HIV on to him).
The material circumstances in which many women find
themselves – especially in Africa – make it difficult, and all
too often impossible, for them to negotiate safer sex, or to
discuss HIV at all. These circumstances include social sub-
ordination, economic dependence and traditional sys-
tems of property and inheritance, which make them
dependent on men.

These provisions will hit women hardest, and will expose
them to assault, ostracism and further stigma. They will
become more vulnerable to HIV, not less.
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 4 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Fourth, criminalisation is often unfairly and selectively
enforced. Prosecutions and laws single out already vulner-
able groups – like sex workers, men who have sex with
men and, in European countries, black males.
Women who are already marginalized, such as sex work-
ers and drug users, are placed at risk of further targeting by
government officials and agencies. This targeting is made
more acute by the fact that, thus far, these laws have been
relatively rarely applied. Such prosecutions as there have
been have resulted from individual and sometimes idio-
syncratic decisions by particular police officers and prose-
cutors. The fact is that, if we leave aside cases of deliberate
transmission of HIV, the behaviour that is prosecuted –
namely, sex between two consenting adults – is common.
The prosecutions have therefore been necessarily arbi-
trary.
Fifth, criminalisation places blame on one person instead
of responsibility on two. This is a hard but important
thing to say. HIV has been around for nearly three dec-
ades. For nearly three decades the universal public infor-
mation message has been that no one is exempt from it.
So the risk of getting HIV (or any sexually transmitted
infection) must now be seen as an inescapable facet of
having sex. We cannot pretend that the risk is introduced
into an otherwise safe encounter by the person who

knows or should know he has HIV. The risk is part of the
environment, and practical responsibility for safer sex
practices rests on everyone who is able to exercise auton-
omy in deciding to have sex with another.
The person who passes on the virus may be 'more guilty'
than the person who acquires it, but criminalisation
unfairly and inappropriately places all the 'blame' on the
person with HIV. It is true (as pointed out earlier) that the
subordinate position of many women makes it impossi-
ble for them to negotiate safer sex. When a woman has no
choice about sex, and gets infected, her partner unques-
tionably deserves blame. But the fact is that criminalisa-
tion does not help women in this position. It simply
places them at greater risk of victimisation. Criminalisa-
tion singles one sexual partner out. All too often, despite
her greater vulnerability, it will be the woman. Criminali-
sation compounds the evil, rather than combating it.
Sixth, these laws are difficult and degrading to apply. This
is because they intrude on the intimacy and privacy of
consensual sex. Nor are we talking about non-consensual
sex. That is rape, and rape should always be prosecuted.
But where sex is between two consenting adult partners,
the apparatus of proof and the necessary methodology of
prosecution degrade the parties and debase the law. The
Zimbabwean woman again springs to our attention: her
lover wanted the prosecution withdrawn, but the law
vetoed his wishes. It also countermanded her interests.
The result is a tragedy for all, and a blight on HIV preven-
tion and treatment efforts.
What is more, the legal concepts of negligence and even

recklessness are often incoherent in the realm of sexual
behaviour, and incapable of truly just application. No one
suggests that a person knowing he has HIV, who sets out
intending to infect another, and achieves his aim, ought to
escape prosecution (such as deliberately stabbing some-
one with an injecting needle containing blood with HIV)
[13]. He has set out deliberately to harm another and he
has achieved his purpose as surely as if he had wounded
his victim with a firearm or a knife. In all these cases, the
victims and their society seek justice because harm was
caused with clear intention.
But in cases where there is no deliberate intention, the cat-
egories and distinctions of the criminal law become fuzzy
and incapable of offering clear guidance – to those
affected by the laws and to prosecutors. Some laws target
either 'reckless' or 'negligent' transmission of or exposure
to HIV. Others advocate criminalising only 'reckless'
transmission of or exposure to HIV. We know that the
'reasonable person' often has unprotected sex with part-
ners of unknown sexual history in spite of the known
risks. That's why we have an HIV epidemic, and that's why
interventions to reduce unsafe sex are so important.
When it comes to sex, with its potent elements of need,
want, trust, passion, shame, fear, risk and heedlessness,
normal, reasonable people simply do not always follow
public health guidelines. With the best of intentions, they
may make assumptions (e.g. suggesting condom use = "I
am HIV+"), avoid issues (e.g. "no need to disclose if we
just do oral sex"), or just hope for the best. HIV is a risk,
but it is balanced in both parties' minds by the possibility

of pleasure, excitement, closeness, material or social gain,
and maybe love. That, for better or worse, is customary –
yes, reasonable – behaviour.
But in court, looking back (especially looking back at an
encounter where the worst outcome happened), a differ-
ent standard is applied. As Matthew Weait's insightful
account of British prosecutions has shown [14], the risk of
HIV is treated as inherently unreasonable, and the deci-
sion of the putative victim to run the risk is rendered irrel-
evant by doctrines that require disclosure.
It is simply unfair to judge people, particularly a more or
less arbitrarily selected small segment of the population,
by legal standards of sexual behaviour that bear little rela-
tion to the standards of behaviour in real life.
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 5 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
Seventh, many of these laws are extremely poorly drafted.
This is partly because of evidentiary burdens and the diffi-
culty of satisfying them (that is, who infected whom).
Because it is difficult to prove an offence that involves
consensual sex, and because of the difficulties of applying
the categories of the criminal law, many of these laws end
up being a hodge-podge of confused legislative intent and
bad drafting.
For instance, under the 'model law' that many countries in
East and West Africa have adopted, a person who is aware
of being infected with HIV must inform 'any sexual con-
tact in advance' of this fact [15]. But the law does not say
what 'any sexual contact' is. Is it holding hands? Kissing?
Or only more intimate forms of exploratory contact? Or

does it apply only to penetrative intercourse? The legal
provision remains mysterious on these crucial issues.
What it also does not say is what 'in advance' means. Must
it be before any sexual contact is initiated? Or is it only
before actual intercourse occurs? Will people be prose-
cuted for intimate conduct intended to lead up to inter-
course? We do not know. The laws do not say. Worse,
millions of West and East Africans who must now live
their lives under fear of prosecution by this law do not
know.
The 'model' law would not pass muster in any constitu-
tional state where the rule of law applies. The rule of law
requires clarity in advance on the meaning of criminal
provisions and the boundaries of criminal liability. But
who will venture to challenge the laws as they have been
enacted in 11 countries (as well as the often problematic
laws criminalising HIV transmission and exposure in
North America and Western Europe)? Until challenged,
the terrifyingly vague provisions remain on the statute
books.
Eighth, and perhaps most painfully to those living with
HIV, criminalisation increases stigma. From the first diag-
nosis of AIDS 27 years ago, HIV has carried a mountain-
ous burden of stigma. This has been for one over-riding
reason: the fact that it is sexually transmitted. No other
infectious disease is viewed with as much fear and repug-
nance as HIV. Because of this, stigma lies at the heart of
the experience of every person living with or at risk of HIV.
It is stigma that makes those at risk of HIV reluctant to be
tested; it is stigma that makes it difficult – and often

impossible – for them to speak about their infection; and
it is stigma that continues to hinder access to the life-sav-
ing antiretroviral therapies that are now increasingly avail-
able across Africa.
Legislators bewildered, baffled, or at a loss as to how to
respond effectively to the epidemic may be seduced into
taking recourse to criminalisation, because it seems attrac-
tive, effective and media-friendly. But it is not prevention-
or treatment-friendly. It is hostile to both.
This is because, tragically, it is stigma that lies primarily
behind the drive to criminalisation. It is stigma, rooted in
the moralism that arises from the sexual transmission of
HIV, which too often provides the main impulse behind
the enactment of these laws.
Even more tragically, such laws and prosecutions in turn
only add fuel to the fires of stigma. Prosecutions for HIV
transmission and exposure, and the chilling content of the
enactments themselves, reinforce the idea of HIV as a
shameful, disgraceful, unworthy condition, requiring iso-
lation and ostracism.
But HIV is a virus, not a crime. That fact is elementary, and
all-important. Law-makers and prosecutors overlook it.
We must fight this new burden of moralising stigma and
persuade them of how wrong their approach is.
Ninth, criminalisation is a blatant disinducement to test-
ing. It is radically incompatible with a public health strat-
egy that seeks to encourage people to come forward to
find out their HIV status. AIDS is now a medically man-
ageable disease. Across Africa, the life-saving drugs that
suppress the virus and restore the body to health are

becoming increasingly available. But why should any
woman in Kenya want to find out her HIV status, when
her knowledge can only expose her to risk of prosecution?
The laws put diagnosis, treatment, help and support fur-
ther out of her reach.
By reinforcing stigma, by using the weapons of fear and
blame and recrimination, criminalisation makes it more
difficult for those with or at risk of HIV to access testing,
to talk about diagnosis with HIV, and to receive treatment
and support. We therefore have a dire but unavoidable
calculus: these laws will lead to more deaths, more suffer-
ing and greater debilitation from AIDS. This when we
need, instead, interventions that support openness and
disclosure, and that help protect those with HIV from the
stigma, discrimination and violence that may result.
Criminal legislation cannot and will not assist.
Criminalisation is thus costing lives. The International
Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS has rightly
described laws like this as part of a 'war on women' [16].
However, they are not just a war on women. They are a
war on all people living with HIV, and they constitute an
assault on good sense and rationality in dealing with the
epidemic. The rush to legislation has resulted in rash,
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 6 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
inappropriate and in all too many cases excessive laws.
The laws often constitute an assault not just on civil liber-
ties, but on rational and effective interventions in the epi-
demic.
And this brings us to the tenth and last point, which is

about belief, and hope – words all too seldom heard in
this epidemic. Criminalisation assumes the worst about
people with HIV, and in doing so it punishes vulnerabil-
ity. The human rights approach assumes the best about
people with HIV and supports empowerment (see addi-
tional file 2) [17,18].
As Australian Justice Michael Kirby – who powerfully
lights a pathway of justice and hope and reason in this
epidemic – has argued, countries with human rights laws
that encourage the undiagnosed to test for HIV do much
better at containing the epidemic than those that have
'adopted punitive, moralistic, denialist strategies, includ-
ing those relying on the criminal law as a sanction' [19].
The prevention of HIV is not just a technical challenge for
public health. It is a challenge to all humanity to create a
world in which behaving safely is truly feasible, is safe for
both sexual partners, and genuinely rewarding. When
condoms are available, when women have the power to
use them, when those with HIV or at risk of it can get test-
ing and treatment, when they are not afraid of stigma,
ostracism and discrimination, they are far more likely to
be able to act consistently for their own safety and that of
others.
The global consensus on human rights and the need for
an enabling environment captures this positive vision of
HIV prevention. When compared with the punitive and
angry approach embodied in criminalisation, the human
rights-based approach is clearly more important now than
ever. The principal effect of criminalisation is to enhance
stigma, fear, isolation, and the dread of persecution and

ostracism that drives people away from treatment.
In conclusion, we submit that:
• criminalisation is a poor tool for addressing HIV infec-
tion and transmission;
• there is no public health rationale for invoking criminal
law sanctions against those who unknowingly and unin-
tentionally transmit HIV or expose others to it;
• the sole rationale for criminalisation is the criminal law
goal of retribution and punishment – but that is a poor
and distorted aim for public health purposes; and
• criminalisation is in general warranted only in cases
where someone sets out, well knowing he has HIV, to
infect another person, and achieves this aim.
In other cases, we are left with the sad burdens, but also
the hopeful initiatives, that are available to us in this epi-
demic. These include a resolve to fight stigma and discrim-
ination, to counter criminalisation, and to fight instead
for justice, good sense, effective prevention measures, gen-
der equality, and for access to effective prevention and to
treatment.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
The authors participated equally in the development of
the arguments in the essay. EC wrote the first draft which
was edited by SB and MC. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Additional material
References
1. Kovach GC: 'Prison for Man With H.I.V. Who Spit on a Police

Officer'. 2008 [ />16spit.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1210990
994-YgyD1ijPFAmzjlIydEIEpw]. New York Times
2. Ellis TM: 'HIV-positive man gets 35 years for spitting on Dallas
police officer'. 2008 [ />dws/news/localnews/stories/051508dnmetspit.2fc6bdb.html]. Dallas
Morning News
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 'Contact with saliva,
tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmis-
sion of HIV'. 2008 [ />qa37.htm].
4. Swiss HIV clinical specialists recently released a consensus statement
'that individuals with HIV on effective antiretroviral therapy and with-
out sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are sexually non-infectious',
Vernazza P, et al.: 'Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant
d'aucune autre MST et suivant un traitment antirétroviral
efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle'. Bulletin
des médecins suisses 2008, 89(5): [ />2008-05/2008-05-089.PDF].
5. All Africa Reported in the Zimbabwe Herald 2008 [http://allaf
rica.com/stories/200804020011.html].
6. Zimbabwe Herald 2008.
Additional file 1
Comment 1. Additional comment for [12]
Click here for file
[ />2652-11-7-S1.doc]
Additional file 2
Comment 2. Additional comment for [18]
Click here for file
[ />2652-11-7-S2.doc]
Publish with BioMed Central and every
scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime."

Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK
Your research papers will be:
available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours — you keep the copyright
Submit your manuscript here:
/>BioMedcentral
Journal of the International AIDS Society 2008, 11:7 />Page 7 of 7
(page number not for citation purposes)
7. Sierra Leone's Prevention and Control of HIV and AIDS Act
of 2007 (refer section 21) 2008 [ />Laws/2007-8p.pdf].
8. See details of these allegations, see the letter of protest 2008
[ />].
9. Bernard EJ: Criminal HIV Transmission. 2008 [http://criminal
hivtransmission.blogspot.com/ ]. See also - omb
erg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601202&sid=aRDZCKjq49n8&refer=healthcare
10. UNFPA Fact Sheet: 'The Criminalisation of HIV'. 2008.
11. Bernard EJ: Criminal HIV Transmission. Neue Zürcher Zeitung
2008 [ />].
12. HIV/AIDS and Human Rights in SADC – An evaluation of the steps taken
by countries within the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
region to implement the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human
Rights 2006 [o/files/
pub_HR%20report%202006%20final.doc].
13. Elliot R: 'Criminal Law, Public Health and HIV Transmission:
A Policy Options Paper'. 2002 [ />tions/IRC-pub02/JC733-CriminalLaw_en.pdf]. UNAIDS Best Practice,
Geneva, Switzerland
14. Weait M: Intimacy and Responsibility: The Criminalisation of HIV Transmis-

sion London and New York: Routledge-Cavendish, Glasshouse; 2007.
15. An example of its enactment is section 24 of Kenya's HIV/AIDS Prevention
and Control Act of 2006 .
16. Email communication from Beri Hull of ICW .
17. Bunnell R, Ekwaru JP, Solberg P, Wamai N, Bikaako-Kajura W, Were
W, Coutinho A, Liechty C, Madraa E, Rutherford G, Mermin J:
'Changes in sexual risk behaviour and risk of HIV transmis-
sion after antiretroviral therapy and prevention interven-
tions in rural Uganda'. AIDS 2006, 20(1):85-92.
18. Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS: "Meta-analysis of
high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they
are infected with HIV in the United States: implications for
HIV prevention programs". Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes 2005, 39(4):446-53.
19. POZ: 'Australian Judge Slams HIV Criminalization'. 2008
[ />].